That's debatable. That can go either way in some instances. The relationship between Peter & Gwen is certainly more grounded; as well as, Peter embracement of his new found powers as a teenager & the continue learning the limits or scope of it. Also, investigating and re-discovering his parents definitely bring a more human element, as it relates to Ben & May. The tone is certainly more grounded than Raimi's.

Yet, Raimi's films was fairly more grounded as well as far as the villains go thus far. Norman situation with the defense contracts and competitors was good motives for him rushing human testing, there by leading to split-personalities. We all know how real that can be giving the number a mass shootings taking place by those on prescription drugs that have not been tested for a numbers of years, but rushed to market...now we see the results of these strong hallucinogenic drugs.

Doc Ock taping into the brain with nano-technology, controlling functions, thoughts, and robotics. One don't have to suspend belief that an accident could have happen...bonding so close to the central nerve and medulla part of the brain, that an operation could prove deadly.

The plot for both of these villains is certainly more grounded, I think, than a humanoid Lizard's plot to create a world without limits. Point being, both directors have had their moments in grounded realities.

Let me clarify what I meant.

The Raimi films are very deliberately stylized to evoke a comic-book-type feel in terms of their overall tone, whereas TASM has a stylistic tone that is equal parts 'true-to-life' and comic-book-come-to-life', which is what I meant by 'grounded in reality'.

^ There's nothing lazy whatsoever about using additional members of Spidey' s rogues gallery to start off TASM 2 - hypothetically - with a bang and demonstrate what the synopsis refers to in terms of Peter having a busy life trying to juggle his duties as Spider-Man with his normal life.

Agreed 100%

Quote:

Originally Posted by chaseter

We don't know where or how Rhino fits into the movie. He could be the main villain or just a side villain. I would think with an opening cameo...they would want to keep it secret.

I think its more likely that Electro is the main villain, not Rhino.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Parker

"No matter how small I am--no matter how hopeless everything seems--I mustn't give up! My size doesn't matter! Even my life doesn't matter! No one can win--every battle, but--no man should fall-- without a struggle!"

^ There's nothing lazy whatsoever about using additional members of Spidey' s rogues gallery to start off TASM 2 - hypothetically - with a bang and demonstrate what the synopsis refers to in terms of Peter having a busy life trying to juggle his duties as Spider-Man with his normal life.

The problem arises when you introduce an absurd element (Shocker,Rhino) with no precedent or explanation for why they're there, in a world that has been established isn't running wild with super villains and that we are in fact meant to recognize as something more akin to our own (more "grounded") according to Marc Webb.

It's a lazy cop-out to insist that since two absurd elements (Spidey,Lizard) were introduced, that the gates are now open for any absurd element to be introduced, no explanation required. Which is exactly what you insist by dropping Shocker in the opening credits. "It's a comic book movie" is the laziest cop out ever.

Narration is lazy. Exposition is generally lazy, but these things are necessary in sci-fi/fantasy. It doesn't have to be characters standing around talking. That's not even what I'm asking for if you've properly understood my post. Not sure what you're on about with that.
For instance, we saw Peter get bit by a genetically modified spider. BAM. Spider-powers. That's suspension of disbelief. Connors injects himself with a cross species formula he created and becomes a giant lizard. BAM. Suspension of disbelief. These things are inherently absurd and we, the audience understand that and accept it for the sake of the story. There is a problem when you introduce an absurd element into a film which is not absurd (and TASM's world is grounded if we can go by TASM). There's a HUGE difference in introducing Dr. Connors and seeing and understanding why he becomes the Lizard and dropping the Shocker in the opening minutes (though they are both absurd). Get it? I'm concerned with the characters, not the superpowers. It needs to make "sense" within the framework of the story first and foremost, and fanboy pleasing action spectacle second.

Makes sense to me. A spiderteen, a lizard man, and a man who seemingly appears and disappears from a prison cell. As far as Im concerned it its open season for superpowers.

Quote:

Just "going for it" with no explanation is something we can expect from childrens cartoons and videogames.

So what? That doesnt make it illogical.

Quote:

If the film were to open by dropping us into the action with Spidey taking on some guys robbing a bank or whatever, that would be just fine- Just like the Bond and Indy films. That would be great in fact.

The problem arises when you introduce an absurd element (Shocker,Rhino) with no precedent or explanation for why they're there, in a world that has been established isn't running wild with super villains and that we are in fact meant to recognize as something more akin to our own according to Marc Webb.

Thats fine, but you ignore precedent. I don't think every individual superpower needs precedent once you have 3 super powered people (that includes the man in the jail cell at the end who btw was never explained)

Quote:

It's a lazy cop-out to insist that since two absurd elements (Spidey,Lizard) were introduced, that the gates are now open for any absurd element to be introduced, no explanation required. Which is exactly what you insist by dropping Shocker in the opening credits. "It's a comic book movie" is the laziest cop out ever.

Its not lazy when they already laid the groundwork\.

Quote:

Yes. we all understand suspension of disbelief.

You don't seem to understand it unless they hold your hand and walk you through it.

Quote:

Again, realism's got nothing to do with it. Spider-powers are inherently unrealistic. Yes, we know that and we accept it. This is basic storytelling.
You're taking what I wrote and you're interpreting it quite literally. I'm not even sure what you're on about here. It's not about "realism" or being "serious" . It's about the filmmakers establishing a tone and sticking to it. Not lazily dropping in fanservice characters with no explanation in a world with no precedent for it. Might as well be watching a cartoon at that point.

You keep saying fan-service as some way to undermine my point, but I'm not arguing fan-service. And I am sorry I took what you said the way you said it, but there is only one meaning of realism.

Quote:

Unfortunately, in a movie like this, which is aiming for a more "grounded" approach (according to Webb- and which TASM accomplished quite well), we do need explanations for why absurd things happen. "It's a comic book movie" is not an explanation. It's lazy.

"Is a comic book movie" is not my explanation. Its a comic book movie that has already set up super powers in the world. Not lazy. And Webb can say whatever studio buzzwords he wants. Grounded. Dark. Gritty. They all mean the same thing. "I'm not Joel Shumacher."

Quote:

Not sure what you mean about being "too concerned with superpowers". What does that even mean?

I mean you act like the sky is falling because someone might dare not hold your hand and explain to you how someone got powers.

Quote:

I wholly accept that a man can have electric powers or turn into a lizard as long as it operates under the films own logic.
Of course we're all concerned with it being a good movie with a good story- but the film must obey and be consistent with it's own internal logic. Though if you don't understand by now why throwing Shocker or Rhino in the opening minutes automatically lowers the film to the juvenille level of a cartoon, then I don't know what to say. We should expect more from our movies.

I expect plenty from my movies and do not think I am some knuckle dragger looking for a juvenile action scene. Part of excepting alot from movies is wanting them to think out of the box. I am sorry I am suggesting something that doesn't coincide with the Joseph Campbell model, but breaking away from filmmmaking 101 has proven to be a useful strategy.

Makes sense to me. A spiderteen, a lizard man, and a man who seemingly appears and disappears from a prison cell. As far as Im concerned it its open season for superpowers.

So what? That doesnt make it illogical.

Thats fine, but you ignore precedent. I don't think every individual superpower needs precedent once you have 3 super powered people (that includes the man in the jail cell at the end who btw was never explained)

Its not lazy when they already laid the groundwork\.

You don't seem to understand it unless they hold your hand and walk you through it.

You keep saying fan-service as some way to undermine my point, but I'm not arguing fan-service. And I am sorry I took what you said the way you said it, but there is only one meaning of realism.

"Is a comic book movie" is not my explanation. Its a comic book movie that has already set up super powers in the world. Not lazy. And Webb can say whatever studio buzzwords he wants. Grounded. Dark. Gritty. They all mean the same thing. "I'm not Joel Shumacher."

I mean you act like the sky is falling because someone might dare not hold your hand and explain to you how someone got powers.

I expect plenty from my movies and do not think I am some knuckle dragger looking for a juvenile action scene. Part of excepting alot from movies is wanting them to think out of the box. I am sorry I am suggesting something that doesn't coincide with the Joseph Campbell model, but breaking away from filmmmaking 101 has proven to be a useful strategy.

Well, you've obviously got your own version of what you think will happen planned out in your head- with super powered characters running around and fighting with no explanation like in the comics and cartoons.

I'm simply extrapolating from the tone that was established in TASM where weird, crazy things CAN happen, but there's a reason for them happening. What you're asking for is mindless fantasy. Mindless because you think it's "open season for superpowers". You want your fantasy and you want it now, regardless of it making sense within the framework of the universe established.Nice effort with the hand holding thing though. It's not "holding the audience's hand" or "spelling it out". How elementary that you'd assume that. it's called not insulting our intelligence. Sure, if Shocker or Rhino were to appear, we can all easily surmise who these characters are and what they do, etc...but it should make sense within the context of the tone of the universe TASM has established and be strung along in a logical fashion. That's not asking for anything to be spelled out, it's expecting the filmmakers to respect the audience. Ironically, by having to actually explain this to you, I'm "holding your hand" and spelling this all out for you.

"As far as Im concerned it its open season for superpowers". lol! Did you not watch the Raimi Spider-Man movies? Did you not watch the Batman films? Did you not watch TASM? Did you not watch Avengers or any other number of comic book films? Never once do unexplained super powered characters just pop up apropo of nothing with no explanation. Films just don't work that way. What you're suggesting sounds like something out of the Incredibles-which is a fine movie, but in no way comparable to the tone of TASM. This is why fanboys don't direct movies. Enjoy your cartoons, I guess?

Again, we're not talking about the Incredibles here. Like I said before, imagine if, in Nolans Batman, the film beginning with Batman fighting the Penguin or Riddler with no explanation. Incredibly stupid AND insulting to us, the audience. It's not about not being able to fathom who these characters are or why they're there- it's about the filmmakers lazily throwing out absurd inexplicable fanwanking nods and winks and expecting the audience to just accept it because "it's a comic book movie".

Not sure why you're bringing up the Joseph Cambell model...? TASM subscribed to the Hero's Journey, so did Nolans Batman, so did Raimi's Spider-Man. This kind of model works well for action/adventure movies- That's not to say they need to be simplistic, dumbed down and never deviate from the formula. You want to deviate from "filmaking 101"/the hero's journey? What do you want, David Lynch to direct Spider-Man. lol.

Also, you're not thinking outside the box at all (though it's cute that you think you are) you're thinking inside the same box as the rest of the fanboys clammoring for the filmmakers to show no restraint and use Shocker/Rhino for an opening battle. This is why the Raimi/Nolan films worked so well. The films weren't overcrowded and we weren't bombarded with lots of superpowered characters/cameos, which made it all the more special when something out of the norm did happen.

If TASM2 WERE to ultimately go in this direction though- (I'd forgotten about the jail cell scene) I wouldn't be surprised as TASM was a directionless, visionless mess directed by a novice filmmaker (and studio puppet to boot).

It hardly matters anyway as Shocker will not appear in an "opening battle" no matter how hard the fanbois salivate.

__________________
"You can leave a penny, you can't take a penny. You can leave a penny anytime. You have to spend $10 to take a penny. Store policy."
"Since when has this been store policy?"
"Uh, since my boss made up the policy. You gonna pay? You're holding up my line of one other person. You can't afford your milk, step aside. What, daddy didn't give you enough milk money? Little baby gonna cry about it? Just step aside."And that is how Uncle Ben dies.

__________________
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses. - Henry Ford
-----------
Who the **** makes a movie and while planning it is like, "you know what this needs...is some Greg Kinnear."

I hope it's not just a quick cameo, but as I said a long time ago I'd rather see a villain on screen get short changed then never see them at all. I much prefer depth and character development, but seeing spidey taking out random villains throughout these films is something I'm very much interested in seeing. If they really want to use the villains again in a later film after using them for a cameo (like Rhino potentially), they can always go back and flesh them out, showing their origins in flashbacks and using them in the context of a new story and development for that movie. I think that would give so much new depth and life to this universe, especially if there's going to multiple more spidey films in this new Webb-verse. Characters can recur in new stories

__________________"All for One and One for All"-Founding Member of Spidey 3'sBandOfBrothers
(less proud of this now)

I highly doubt Rhino would be just a mere cameo. He would probably have a small role in comparison to Electro though.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Parker

"No matter how small I am--no matter how hopeless everything seems--I mustn't give up! My size doesn't matter! Even my life doesn't matter! No one can win--every battle, but--no man should fall-- without a struggle!"

Did he? I've never seen that quote, but if so, you are certainly right... it wouldn't make sense to start with a supervillain.

Never saw or heard that quote either
Is it ok to have the movie start with a supervillain fight? Then move to flashbacks? Nolan loves placing a few flashbacks in his films after the start of each of his films, that didn't damage his image or films

My best hypothesis... Osborn hires robotics scientist Toomes to create Rhino/hires O'hirn to kill Spidey. When Spidey defeats him, he elects Max Dillon to spy on Oscorp. Max takes it too far, gets on Osborn's bad side and is turned into Electro. In a rage, he blames Spider-Man and the remainder of the film is Electro vs. Spidey.

lol. I'm merely using context clues. If what Foxx said can be trusted, then thats probably the case.

For a couple of logical reasons, Peter probably isn't allowed through the doors at Oscorp anymore. Security is probably on constant lookout for the Spider-Man as well. And in other words, he still hasn't learned his lesson from getting the Stacys involved and pays the price yet again.

lol. I'm merely using context clues. If what Foxx said can be trusted, then thats probably the case.

For a couple of logical reasons, Peter probably isn't allowed through the doors at Oscorp anymore. Security is probably on constant lookout for the Spider-Man as well. And in other words, he still hasn't learned his lesson from getting the Stacys involved and pays the price yet again.

How many times will he not learn his lesson and pay the price? Because we know Gwen is going to die at some point.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arrow_22

Look for reports of mysterious heroism in the next 6 years. Then check back on this thread

How many times will he not learn his lesson and pay the price? Because we know Gwen is going to die at some point.

um. I'm guessing three? pure conjecture of course. But three is my guess. once in each film. Until the end of the trilogy, when he learns from his mistakes and all three acts worth of plot lines are wrapped up. The conclusion of the story. Y'know... Shakespearean and all o' that.